of kin that everything necessary is done to discover the truth about what happened and to investigate, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those eventually found responsible.382 243. The obligation to investigate human rights violations is one of the positive measures that States must adopt to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. 383 Since its first judgment, the Court has emphasized the importance of the State's obligation to investigate and to punish human rights violations.384 Thus, in cases where it has been established that extrajudicial executions have occurred, it is essential that States conduct an effective investigation into the violation of the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the Convention and determine the responsibilities of all the perpetrators and participants, especially when State agents are involved.385 Similarly, the obligation to ensure the rights recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention entails the State’s duty to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,386 which is reinforced by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture,387 which require the State to “take […] effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction.” In cases of violence against women, the general obligations established in the American Convention are complemented and enhanced by those derived from the Convention of Belém do Pará, Article 7(b) of which specifically requires that States Parties apply due diligence to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women. 388 Likewise, there is an obligation to conduct an effective investigation in certain cases of enforced displacement.389 382 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 260. 383 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 166, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 190. 384 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 166 385 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156, and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 76. 386 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, para. 147, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 230. 387 Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establishes that: The State Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention. While, Article 6 stipulates that: In accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction. The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction. And, Article 8 establishes that: The States Parties shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case. Likewise, if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State. 388 177. 389 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, para. 193, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, para. Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, para. 149. 80